Government of Gujarat vs PRAKASHBHAI MANSUKHBHAI SUCHAK Advocate - M A CHAVDA — 2064/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN020026452023

Filing Number

2064/2023

Filing Date

07-Apr-2023

Registration No

2064/2023

Registration Date

07-Apr-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

2-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203024212047

Police Station

JUNAGADH B DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,134

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASHBHAI MANSUKHBHAI SUCHAK Advocate - M A CHAVDA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 2064/2023 Decision The court acquitted the accused Prakashbhai Mansukhbhai Suchak of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337 and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 177, 184, 134, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite evidence of a motor vehicle accident. Key Reasoning The court held that while the complainant suffered injuries from an auto-rickshaw collision on December 10, 2021, the prosecution could not conclusively establish the accused's reckless or negligent driving caused the accident. Critical gaps included lack of independent eyewitnesses, unclear vehicle speed, and insufficient evidence distinguishing negligence from mere accident. Applying the principle that suspicion—however strong—cannot replace proof, the court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 15-Jan-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 10-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 05-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 20-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 15-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  19. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  20. 03-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  21. 06-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  22. 31-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  23. 12-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  24. 30-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  25. 29-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  26. 25-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  27. 03-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  28. 29-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  29. 26-Apr-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  30. 22-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  31. 23-Feb-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  32. 22-Jan-2024

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  33. 20-Dec-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  34. 30-Oct-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  35. 29-Sep-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  36. 29-Aug-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  37. 24-Jul-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  38. 26-May-2023

    Process To Accused

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  39. 07-Apr-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 07-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2064/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 2064/2023 Decision The court acquitted the accused Prakashbhai Mansukhbhai Suchak of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337 and Motor Vehicle Act Sections 177, 184, 134, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite evidence of a motor vehicle accident. Key Reasoning The court held that while the complainant suffered injuries from an auto-rickshaw collision on December 10, 2021, the prosecution could not conclusively establish the accused's reckless or negligent driving caused the accident. Critical gaps included lack of independent eyewitnesses, unclear vehicle speed, and insufficient evidence distinguishing negligence from mere accident. Applying the principle that suspicion—however strong—cannot replace proof, the court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case